The Iran deal

[fredtoast]

(05-11-2018, 05:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Mill, people might argue that the MIC/CIA were AMONG groups who pushed the Vietnam War, though hardly primary movers.

One could hardly argue that they pushed the Iraq War though, since that was plainly driven by a cabal within the Bush administration--which was a Republican administration.  

Trump's current NSA is John Bolton, one of the neo cons who helped engineer the Iraq war. And he is a Republican.  Trump is also a Republican. He has the overwhelming support of his party.  Doubtful that many in the MIC or the CIA cheered busting the Iran Deal.  The majority of the intel community certainly understand what just happened to US credibility and to the balance of forces in the Gulf, even if the public does not. They know it wasn't them.

The Republicans neocons actually had to work hard to circumvent the CIA when they wanted to invade Iraq.  They had to create a special office in the DOD to stovepipe the intelligence that the CIA said was not trustworthy.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-11-2018, 05:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Gosh, thanks for posting that disturbing report, Lucy.  This glimpse into Trump/Bolton style foreign policy priorities provides three major insights into the bust up of the Iran Deal and its fallout.

First--


Looks now like busting the deal was more about breaking this consensus than anything. The Iran Deal was "normalizing" Iran.  The Trump goal is to re-demonize it. A Nuke-free Iran was good for the US, but still a danger to Israeli-Saudi hegemony in the region--at least in the view of Israeli/Saudi hawks. (Israeli intel and such notables as Ehud Barack thought it was a good deal.)

And second, there is an incredible element of Deja Vu here, for those of us who remember the Iraq War.

Once it was clear there were no WMDs in Iraq--despite the insistence of people like Bolton that Saddam just had to have them--the Bush team claimed we had also invaded to help "the Iraqi people" when sanctions and all efforts to generate internal revolution failed. And the people, thirsting for American style "freedom," would welcome us. They would build an American-style democracy which would be a "beacon of freedom" to other nations in the Middle East.  Others noted we had also taken out the number one threat to Israel as a "positive", a neo con priority.

The new plan for Iran appears to be return to sanctions and foment revolution within Israel's now #1 enemy, a "new birth of liberty."

This depends, of course, on courting the moderates and secularists--the people Trump just screwed by trashing their treaty.

Finally, and most disturbingly--


I agree that the probability the current Iranian theocracy will stop its nuclear program is now virtually nil. It WAS stopped. But that horse has left the barn.

I also doubt Trump/Bolton will successfully foment regime change using the people they have screwed. That leaves only the military option.

Lucy, what do you suppose this other "credible hard power option" could be? What is it that Trump and Bolton don't want "off the table"? Something we will likely have to use, given how Trump/Bolton have framed their policy. Something that would obviate the need for "large invasion forces or long costly occupations"?

You do not normalize a state sponsor of terrorism. That’s was a problem with the Iran deal. They will never be able to be trusted.

[Dill]

(05-10-2018, 04:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm also worried about a war. Sure. And it's not just Israel worrying me, but also John Bolton and the history of John Bolton-like figures and policies within the republican party. We already witnessed a hawk-led US invading a country and then sending in private companies close to politicians or donors to profit in the aftermath. Nothing indicates to me that can't happen again. 
We already got a president waving around misleading intelligence proof, just this time it doesn't raise that much attention because that's just Trump being Trump and people love him for that flaw. But the parallels are clearly there.

Parallels are there--up to a point.

Check out the article in Lucy's post #143.

Note the talk of a "credible military option" to be put into play if Trump/Bolton cannot effect regime change, an option that is "not off the table."

The kind of "option" which would not require an expensive invasion.

This is just from a "white paper" and may be leaked to the Beacon to test the waters with the highest level of deniability, but even so, to have the kind of NSC/staff which would submit such proposals is itself quite disturbing. It says so much about their policy pipeline, the people selecting, interpreting and packaging data for their higher ups--with a top man who knows nothing of foreign policy but demands loyalty and flattery.

And yes, this originates with ONE PARTY and the advisors its president has chosen.
They, and the people who continue to support them are responsible--not the CIA or MIC or FBI or DoD or State Department.

Nothing like this on the other side. NOTHING.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-11-2018, 05:25 PM)Dill Wrote:   A Sunni balance. Except for Qatar. That will fix things.

They are at least working with Israel. They are crossing their religious lines to do so. I don’t trust any of these Muslim nations. But I will credit the ones who make an honest attempt to come together on anything.

[fredtoast]

(05-11-2018, 05:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You do not normalize a state sponsor of terrorism.  That’s was a problem with the Iran deal.  They will never be able to be trusted.

So it is better to let them have nuclear weapons?

The whole reason we needed that deal was because they could not be trusted.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-11-2018, 05:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So it is better to let them have nuclear weapons?

The whole reason we needed that deal was because they could not be trusted.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

They will never be able to be trusted. They need to be overthrown. Obama could have done a lot towards this when they had an uprising. He just sat on his hands.

[Dill]

(05-11-2018, 05:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:
You do not normalize a state sponsor of terrorism.  That’s was a problem with the Iran deal.  They will never be able to be trusted.

  Unless it is Saudi Arabia.

And the Iran Deal did not "normalize" Iran.

It did not remove all sanctions.  

And it was not based upon "trust"--hence the intrusive inspections.

But it was the most reasonable chance to foment regime change, if that were really the goal.

Now we have fighting between Iran and Israel and Trump leaking nuclear options.  The world is so much better off.

[Dill]

(05-11-2018, 05:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Republicans neocons actually had to work hard to circumvent the CIA when they wanted to invade Iraq.  They had to create a special office in the DOD to stovepipe the intelligence that the CIA said was not trustworthy.

Ha ha, "Office of Special Plans" under the Secretary of Defense.  No oversight from any other sub department.

People who "knew" Saddam had WMDs and was lying.

Republicans.

[Dill]

(05-11-2018, 05:50 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They are at least working with Israel.  They are crossing their religious lines to do so.   I don’t trust any of these Muslim nations.  But I will credit the ones who make an honest attempt to come together on anything.

We break deals but you don't trust "them."

And Iran did make an honest attempt to come together on something.

And Lucy, we are American, not Israeli. 

The willingness of countries to work with us, not Israel, ought to set the bar for determining our national interest.

[hollodero]

(05-11-2018, 05:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Parallels are there--up to a point.

Check out the article in Lucy's post #143.

Note the talk of a "credible military option" to be put into play if Trump/Bolton cannot effect regime change, an option that is "not off the table."

 just as promised. America first means tearing up business-friendly peacekeeping deals, go for regime change & nationbuilding and put the military option back on the table. In short, getting involved in the world and be willing to send troops unlike Obama, the weakling.

That shouldn't come as a surprise though. There's also no contradiction to slam-meme Obama for "8 years of war". One could only wish to find a spouse as loyal as the republican voter is to his party. You can do anything.

The one thing I still cannot grasp - why would one seriously believe the moderates will win the fight in Iran because of US backing. The US did everything in their power to be despised there, and especially amongst the more moderate ones who foolishly decided the US can be trusted and one should give that one a try. The people the US wants to see rise are the ones that got betrayed the hardest here, got the rug swept away from under their feet, while the hardliners got their "the US is the devil" stance fully refueled now.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-11-2018, 05:58 PM)Dill Wrote:   Unless it is Saudi Arabia.

And the Iran Deal did not "normalize" Iran.

It did not remove all sanctions.  

And it was not based upon "trust"--hence the intrusive inspections.

But it was the most reasonable chance to foment regime change, if that were really the goal.

Now we have fighting between Iran and Israel and Trump leaking nuclear options.  The world is so much better off.

You said normalize. I was just responding to your comment.

The Iran deal was a pie in the sky idea that magically Iran would change and be a productive member of the world.

They could still be that way. If they announced they were giving up nuclear ambitions, destroyed their infrastructure, and handed over everything then the world would open up to them.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-11-2018, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: We break deals but you don't trust "them."

And Iran did make an honest attempt to come together on something.

And Lucy, we are American, not Israeli. 

The willingness of countries to work with us, not Israel, ought to set the bar for determining our national interest.

Personally I would be out of the ME all together. I would definitely close our borders to most of those countries. We have bigger fish to fry in Central America. Those countries need some serious pressure put unless democrats want to just let us fix our immigration policy to be at least updated to the modern world.

I say let them fight it out. The Israel and Palestine situation could solve itself if we just both sides fight it out. Winner take all. Let the coalition and Iran fight.

I prefer Israel because they are at least sensible. I credit the saudi’s For working with them. SA is also garbage but hopefully this is a sign of changes.

[Dill]

(05-10-2018, 02:14 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: True.

Republicans used to be different, and a LOT more respectable.

How are you defining "respectable"? You mean like old school would be people like "songbird McCain" who let himself get shot down and then dragged out of a lake with broken arms and a broken leg? Then when the NV worked on his broken arms, he told them everything they wanted to hear, but now hasn't the courage to admit that torture works. Guy was so stupid that he refused to leave the Hanoi Hilton ahead of other prisoners just because he was an admiral's son.  How could you expect a guy who can't put his own interests first to put America first?

Then the liberal media make this loser a "hero" just because he got shot down.  I say maybe its time we stopped handing out medals to people who lose expensive equipment and then sit out the war. No more "participation trophies" for POWs. From now on you actually have to do something to get a medal. Makers before takers.

I hate to tell you this B-Zona but the country has changed and we have to change with it.  And if some people get their kicks putting their life on the line for their country, more power to them. But that's just not where the gravy is.

I'd rather be limping around a golf course on bone spurs--a course I bought with massive inherited wealth-- than walk around the rest of my life unable to raise my arms and afraid to sock it too the terrorists because of some wimpy Declaration of Human Rights. Wouldn't you?

And this is the future. If I am a 13 year old kid looking for role models, I have to say--"McCain is dying and Trump is not. McCain lost his presidential run--possibly because he refused to call Obama an "Arab"; and TRUMP WON, possibly by calling Obama a "Kenyan."  No more loser talk of "duty," integrity and sacrifice.  I want to be a WINNER!  My loser jealous lib teachers are always complaining about Trump's ignorance, lying and vulgarity, but they're all do as I say and not as I do. And have you seen their wives? Well, sir, I don't see Trump paying any penalty for ignorance, lying and vulgarity--quite the opposite. I see how America chooses and then stands by its leaders. So keep your McCain. From now on I'm going to do as Trump does."

I know, I know B. You already put in your time. Did your duty. But no one will hold that against you in the new America if can just forget the constitution and shift your loyalty to the present commander in chief. (Not such a big shift, I mean, you already have a commission from the president, right?)  I hear that is what the government, or at least one branch of it, now asks its people to do. This is attracting a certain kind of person, "wealth creators" I believe they call them. They know how to get those tax dollars flowing into private ventures.

It is not too late for old dogs like us! We can do it too. We would make better Trump surrogates than the ones he's got, I'm sure. And I'm not thinking of whatever paltry pay we might get for doing that, but how we could parlay our connection into "access."  "Draining the Swamp" for Trump. That's the real honeypot.  It's about American values-- this kind $$$$.

[Bengalzona]

(05-11-2018, 06:57 PM)Dill Wrote: How are you defining "respectable"? You mean like old school would be people like "songbird McCain" who let himself get shot down and then dragged out of a lake with broken arms and a broken leg? Then when the NV worked on his broken arms, he told them everything they wanted to hear, but now hasn't the courage to admit that torture works. Guy was so stupid that he refused to leave the Hanoi Hilton ahead of other prisoners just because he was an admiral's son.  How could you expect a guy who can't put his own interests first to put America first?

Wait a minute, now!

That's not what I heard. I heard he disobeyed direct orders so he could be a hotshot and ended up getting himself shot down. Hundreds of soldiers lost their lives trying to rescue him. But he didn't care. He was only worried about his own broken arms and his personal glory. They tortured him and it was so effective, he revealed troop deployments and positions and got thousands of soldiers murdered!!!

Get your alternate facts straight!!!

[Dill]

(05-11-2018, 06:25 PM)hollodero Wrote:  just as promised. America first means tearing up business-friendly peacekeeping deals, go for regime change & nationbuilding and put the military option back on the table. In short, getting involved in the world and be willing to send troops unlike Obama, the weakling.

That shouldn't come as a surprise though. There's also no contradiction to slam-meme Obama for "8 years of war". One could only wish to find a spouse as loyal as the republican voter is to his party. You can do anything.

The one thing I still cannot grasp - why would one seriously believe the moderates will win the fight in Iran because of US backing. The US did everything in their power to be despised there, and especially amongst the more moderate ones who foolishly decided the US can be trusted and one should give that one a try. The people the US wants to see rise are the ones that got betrayed the hardest here, got the rug swept away from under their feet, while the hardliners got their "the US is the devil" stance fully refueled now.

Er, not just a "military option."  "On the table" refers to nukes. That's what would save us the cost of an invasion.  LOL Stupid Bush/Obama would never think of saving money and lives that way.

You offer practical reasons why it is unlikely that people we screwed would be happy to work with us. But it's also not clear that Bolton et al. are really interested in swaying moderate Iranians. They have great difficulty empathizing with or understanding non Western cultures, and tend to view "the good ones" as wannabee Americans who just dress funny. That is, seeing nothing interesting or of redeeming value in other cultures, they assume others secretly want a US lifestyle and Constitution--our culture, not theirs.  How you going to get those Nigerians back to their huts, once they have seen the US? 

In consequence, the Boltons assume they can move the "good ones" with American-style incentives, and if the good ones take power they will want a government and culture more like ours and yours. But if that doesn't work well (See Iraq) , and why would it for the reasons you mention, then so what. We have a leader ready to care of problems without expensive invasions.

That lack of understanding/empathy is also why they construct foreign leadership as intractable liars. No glimpse of how the other's behavior might seem rational on his terms. "John [Bolton] is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you're never going to fundamentally change its behavior."

While we are on the subject of ignorant, brutal and unstable leaders making bad decisions that millions must pay for, I might add that scandal seems to disorient Trump, push him to react even more impulsively than usual. Lots of things in play as we all--Europeans too--face a world destabilized by Trump's destruction of a stabilizing international agreement, an impending diplomatic disaster in NK, and a scandal putting money from Russian oligarchs into a pot used to pay off porn stars which peels a few points of Trump's support.

PS "nationbuilding" is Dems. "Regime change" is Republicans.

[Dill]

(05-11-2018, 07:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Wait a minute, now!

That's not what I heard. I heard he disobeyed direct orders so he could be a hotshot and ended up getting himself shot down. Hundreds of soldiers lost their lives trying to rescue him. But he didn't care. He was only worried about his own broken arms and his personal glory. They tortured him and it was so effective, he revealed troop deployments and positions and got thousands of soldiers murdered!!!

Get your alternate facts straight!!!

Well that fits my narrative!  Thinking about his own arms instead of his comrades.



But WAIT!! maybe things aren't changing as fast as I thought.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2018/05/10/report-white-house-official-mocked-sen-john-mccain-dying-anyway/600349002/

[Dill]

(05-11-2018, 06:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Personally I would be out of the ME all together.  I would definitely close our borders to most of those countries.  We have bigger fish to fry in Central America.  Those countries need some serious pressure put unless democrats want to just let us fix our immigration policy to be at least updated to the modern world.  

I say let them fight it out.  The Israel and Palestine situation could solve itself if we just both sides fight it out.  Winner take all.    Let the coalition and Iran fight.

I prefer Israel because they are at least sensible.  I credit the saudi’s For working with them.  SA is also garbage but hopefully this is a sign of changes.

You seem to think that instability on our borders is a bad thing which must be dealt with, but instability in the Middle East is no biggee. Doesn't affect us at all.  That about right?

Also, you are fine if militarily powerful countries beat down weaker people and take their land, right?